Slashdot Mirror


FCC Will Tackle Cell Phone 'Bill Shock'

MexiCali59 writes "The FCC is expected to launch a proceeding at its Thursday meeting that could force wireless providers to change their billing practices. The agency wants to prevent consumers from unknowingly racking up oversized bills on their phones when they go over their minutes, a situation the agency calls 'bill shock.' The agency released a survey earlier this year that showed one in six American consumers had been surprised by a cell phone bill. The FCC's proposed rules would require carriers to send text or voice alerts before and when minutes are used up. Notifications would also have to accompany out-of-country charges, and carriers would be required to clearly disclose any tools they offer to simplify billing."

20 of 477 comments (clear)

  1. All you can eat by Jonah+Hex · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I was forced to switch from one of Sprint's discontinued "Family Plans" to an everything plan in order to get a modern phone a few years ago, and now that I've got an even nicer phone that sucks down more data, I wouldn't be surprised if they discontinue this plan too. Maybe the FCC can keep things semi reasonable, instead of letting things get even worse.

    HEX

  2. Re:Or... by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Informative

    The Washington Post article has some additional info (but TFA linked in the summary has some the Post missed).

    I was a victim of "bill shock", but it was AT&T when they bought out Cingular, not Verizon. My bill had never been over $40 and as soon as AT&T took over, WHAM... $150 bill. I dropped them and got a minute phone. I finally traded that for Boost; no bill shock there, it's a flat $50 per month no matter how much I use it.

  3. Root of the Problem by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Maybe I am missing something, but why doesn't the FCC go after the roots of some of these problems. For instance, can someone please explain to me why in the hell we are being charged for text messages in the first place? I mean, other than to screw us over and make a pretty penny?

    1. Re:Root of the Problem by immakiku · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because the nature of the business (high barriers to entry, mainly) ensures we have a limited selection of carriers. Limited selection means less competition means less competitive practices, like charging for random "services" like text messages even if the "services" should come for free as part of the protocol.

  4. Re:Or...versimplification by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "People could pay attention to the fact that they send 500 text messages in a single day."

    The problem isn't that people sometimes go over, it is that they are charged a ridiculous amount more when they do. I have a USB 3G Modem with a 5 Gig limit which I watched quite carefully. When I knowingly went over just a few hundred megabytes my bill went from $50.00 to $750.00. Now luckily, I was able to convince an upper level rep that I could have rooted my phone and tethered it, but I chose to get the 3G stick to be fair and make sure they received a reasonable amount of compensation for services provided. Until I laid this on them they absolutely were not going to budge at all. I am very much the exception, as obviously the average customer doesn't even understand what I just wrote, so they would have been just straight screwed.

    This is of course ridiculous. Now I admit that I could have perused my contract more fully, but my provider has always been quite reasonable so - having a 7 year relationship with them - I trusted that my contract would also be reasonable. Also, bear in mind that most people don't grok the difference between 5 gigabytes and 300 Megabytes, so the whole "people should pay attention to the contract" argument is flatly absurd.

    The bottom line? There should definately be a law against charging multiple orders of magnitude more for overages. There is absolutely no reason why they cannot pro-rate the overage at a reasonable increase (say 50%) and they absolutely count on peoples ignorance to jerk them around.

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  5. All we ask for is a simple "opt-in",nothing more by mykos · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We don't want the government to decide what they can and can't charge. We just want the government to require going over to be something you have to consciously opt in to do.

    My carrier won't do it. I asked them if I could block data if I have no data plan, seeing as how they made the default internet button right in the center of my phone (and it sticks out the most). They said no. I suspect most other peoples' carriers won't, either.

  6. I'm 100% behind the concept of this by Da_Biz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The first comment is, to me, the most interesting response:
    Sounds like we're once again legislating to save irresponsible people from their own self-destructive actions.

    This response is a dramatic oversimplification of what's going on (sadly, a common occurance). What I believe the FCC is proposing is ensuring that _reasonable_ and _prudent_ laypeople can clearly understand the cost consequences of their actions. And, allowing a customer to set a reasonable price cap on their cell phone spending _increases_ accountability--for costs that match their spending ability.

    For example, the cost of your garden variety LOL or ROFL missive sent via text message while roaming in Cancun (phone from Sprint [USA]) was about $1. For some, this can become frighteningly expensive. Given that European pay-as-you-go service carefully tracks (and easily reports to the user via a simple text message) their remaining credits, I fail to see why this reasonable ability isn't available to everyone.

    And, as someone who has done disaster relief, I have been surprised by a few increases of $40-50 for roaming charges. I am willing to pay this--but I also desire the ability to know up front. I don't think the end user should have to carry their carrier's Terms and Conditions and rate sheet in their back pocket.

    Also, some of these cell phone contracts are ludicrous: even the better ones (I like AT&T) don't do a great job clearly delineating between different types of service (for example, my unlimited SMS messaging plan doesn't include picture messaging). If I, as a person who reads contracts as a part of their job, can accidentally miss this, this circumstance doesn't bode well for an average person who doesn't do this.

    Accountability requires reasonable rules and transparency--US cell contracts and bills need some help on this front.

  7. Re:Or... by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Informative

    Neither, I wasn't texting then (still don't except with my daughter) and wasn't talking more. They just changed the way they counted minutes. When it was Cingular, the clock didn't start until you were connected, AT&T started it as soon as you hit the green button. Cingular never rounded minutes, AT&T rounded up.

    It's all moot now, my voice, text, internet, email, everything, is all unmetered. I'm also completely anonymous to the phone company; I paid cash for the phone, cash for the connection fee (no contract), pay the bill at a gas station or convenience store with cash.

    They text me to inform me that my bill is due a couple of days ahead, and if I go past the due date they text me again and tell me it's shut off. As soon as I pay it, it's right back on right then.

    I'm happer with them than any other carrier I've had.

  8. You wanna tackle Bill Shock???? by RapmasterT · · Score: 5, Interesting

    How about you do something about the god damned HIDDEN CHARGES.

    I'm not talking about overage minutes or text...those are clearly stated in my agreement and I'm on the hook for overages. I'm a big boy and I can pay the bills I agree to.

    But SOMEHOW my cell phone bills seem to include over 20% in taxes, fees, surcharges...all that I never agreed to, was never informed of, and are not optional. How about that? How about when advertising service plan rates the cell companies be required to also report how much the government is going to tack on top of it too.

    1. Re:You wanna tackle Bill Shock???? by AK+Marc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They are "allowed" to advertise them. They are also not required, in any way, to charge them separately. That is, there's nothing that stops a company from advertising a $39.99 plan and when you get your bill, it's for $39.99. However, it's more profitable to list a phone plan at $39.99 and charge $45 for it, than to list it at $39.99 and charge $39.99 for it. They make the service stations advertise the after-tax price for gasoline. Why not the same with telecom? There's no reason we can't do it that way, other than the phone companies like to be able to advertise plans for below what the bill will be.

  9. Re:"Pay us more money and we won't screw you"? by Rich0 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Actually, many carriers offer that option - for a fee.

    Having to pay to NOT receive a service that you DON'T want to receive should be banned.

    When I sign up for phone service, I should be able to set a limit on my monthly bill. If I consume services adding up to that much, they should block my service/etc, but I should not be able to accrue additional liability unless I call the provider and opt-in, setting a higher allowance for that month.

  10. Re:Why stop there? by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'd rather see the government mandate a fee against people that make stupid, nonequivalent analogies.

  11. Re:Great Simple Idea by omnichad · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's a great idea, but not easy in practice. When you're on a partner tower (say a Verizon customer roaming on a Sprint tower), Verizon may not get the bill from Sprint on those minutes until weeks later. Then, all those minutes suddenly post to your account. If they get to the point where this is all done in real time, then it would be a lot useful. But having 200 minutes used, and suddenly jumping to 400 in the course of an hour without even making a call is very possible.

  12. Re:Why stop there? by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So You the customer signed a contract with the cell phone company. You agree to a certain amount of minutes at a certain rate plus additional fees should you go over those minutes. You use your phone. You go over the minutes. But when the cell phone company sends you a bill it's stealing? Don't you have the ability to track the amount of minutes as the month goes by? Even if you don't that's not exactly the cell phone companies fault as you signed up to do business with them.

    The customer is also probably the citizen of a democracy of some sort. In such a system, the people can participate in making laws when they feel that some actor -- corporate or natural -- is harming them. The cell phone company knew this when deciding to do business in the country. If enough citizens can demand redress for this grievance through their government, it is their right to. Can the phone company complain about this? Well, sure, but as you pointed out, they voluntarily decided to do business in the country.

    --
    I am not a crackpot.
  13. Re:Great Simple Idea by rolfwind · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'd also like the government to adopt (for everyone) a law that states that the advertised price is the price. Not tack on a million different taxes and surcharges (most of many are optional for the phone companies to charge) to it where it goes from the advertised $79.99 a month to 105.49 or whatever. Don't tell me the companies can't achieve it - all the gas pumps here can and it's pretty much standard in Europe.

    Now, I don't care if the companies itemize the taxes to explain why the price is where it's at. But this crap happens too often (occupancy tax in hotels) that it's all a scam on an unsuspecting consumer and an educated one can't tell exactly what he'll pay, they just pad the advertised amount in their head with an extra 20%, maybe more.

    And if you're all about the free market, having reliable price points is one of the keys for real competition.

  14. most of the fees are not taxes by yeremein · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I could understand advertising $39.95/mo exclusive of taxes, but the phone companies themselves tack on a bunch of other surcharges that are _not_ taxes. They make them sound like taxes by calling them "regulatory recovery fees", but they're really unadvertised price hikes that they can spring on you at will, even when you have a contractual price.

    Make phone companies advertise their ACTUAL rate first. Then go after these warnings...

    (It's for this reason I use a prepaid Tracfone; no surprises.)

  15. they do it on purpose (I know, big surprise) by roc97007 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Have you noticed that most of the cheaper non-smart phones have a prominent button for "marketplace" or some such WAP service? Just hitting it accidentally can double your bill if you don't have a data plan. (And if you have a cheap flipper, you probably don't have or need a data plan.) This button is usually the only one that can not be remapped or disabled. It is essentially a "PROFIT" button for the carrier.

    We bought the unlimited data plan and unlimited texting plan for our daughter's first cell phone on the theory that just one mistake could be many times more expensive than the cost of the plan. We went a long time without surprises, and then one day I got a bill that was an appreciable fraction of a grand. Turns out the carrier had some kind of "ask a question via text" feature, daughter had discovered it, and was using it to help with homework. Had I known, I would have researched it, found how much it cost per question, and shut it down. But the billing cycle is such that you don't know you're in trouble until you're in LOTS of trouble, and I'm certain this is intentional also.

    I argued with the carrier for a very long time, going up the chain of command (or just sideways -- you never can tell) and eventually found someone who cared that I was going to take four phones to a competing carrier unless they addressed this. They offered a 50% reduction in the bill and I gritted my teeth and took it. And also made very sure that I was aware of all such "services" and had them all locked out.

    The great rank and file -- whom I like to call "Fred and Ethyl", would not know about this stuff until they're nailed by it. Even people who are being careful -- my case -- can still get nailed by "services" of which they are unaware. This goes way beyond disallowing Google Maps on a smartphone so you can charge someone ten bucks a month for the carrier's app. This is like buying a car with Onstar built in and then finding out that it's free to call a red and white ambulance but there's a $10,000 charge if the ambulance is blue and white. It's an arbitrary "gotcha" designed to generate windfalls for the carrier.

    To a certain extent, they all do it, but some are worse than others.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  16. Re:Really? by sonicmerlin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And you sum up what's wrong with this nation. Retards who think anyone with compassion is lazy and nonsensical, and that democracy fails when their preferred leaders aren't in charge.

  17. not everyone who get caught by this are morons! by roc97007 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is not a "protect people from themselves" issue. Things are purposely set up to maximize the possibility of you unintentionally racking up charges. A "Web" button that can't be disabled right next to the "Call" button. Smartphones that "phone home" over the data line even when data is disabled while traveling internationally. Huge, punishing charges if you go over your limit even by a tiny bit. (I mean seriously, if $40 a month will cover several gigabytes of downloads, why charge over $80 for 2.2 Megabytes of downloads without a data plan? Answer: Because they can.) Phone bills that lag 45 days or more behind your actual usage. "Services" that have a per-usage charge that isn't spelled out when you use them. (Teens typically fall for this.) The carrier not clearly communicating that you can turn a lot (but not all) of these "services" off by a simple request.

    It's not just a matter of reading and understanding the TOS. We're all professionals here, we can really dig into a TOS and find the line buried on page 3 in the middle of paragraph six dealing with FCC regulations where they've buried the over usage fees. That doesn't cover everything -- there's ways to overinflate your bill that aren't covered by the TOS.

    Mind you, my nephew was a fine counterexample. He was told that local calls on the weekends were free, and he thought he heard that all local calls were free. His first bill was the size of a paperback and well over a grand. To my knowledge the carrier is still looking for him. No matter how foolproof one makes a system, fools will find a way to crash land. But besides that, the system as it currently stands is designed to blow your hand off if you turn the knob to the left instead of the right, and that's the part that really needs to stop.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  18. Re:Great Simple Idea by zippthorne · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Those extra things on your bill...

    THEY'RE NOT TAXES.

    Call your phone company and have them explain those fees line by line.

    They'll generally call them "regulatory compliance fees." When you go to a restaurant, do you get charged extra for the hand sanitizer in the bathrooms (it's a regulation they must comply with, after all)

    If they can bill your for their time complying with ordinary regulations on top of the agreed upon price, I wonder if you can bill them for your time spent budgeting, recording, and paying their bill....

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!